On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seeing as I just want to shell out to XML for validation I'd like to
> think I don't have to care about what the converted XML looks like.
>
> Was reading another paper of yours
> http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol10/html/Lee01/BalisageVol10-Lee01.html
> yesterday as it happens.
>
> So heres my in-depth analysis.
>
> Looks like the JSON people (or can I just blame Crockford) screwed up
> by not thinking about interoperability with XML when designing their
> format because now they have to erect their own edifice of supporting
> tools and architectures. If alot of what they are trying to achieve
> can be effected with compression and some transformation tricks you
> got to wonder whether the price JSON makes you pay in the lack of
> standards, interoperability and tool support/maturity is worth it
Well said.
I think that many people do not think about this when they develop
domain specific languages either.
The ubiquity and availability of tooling is one thing that makes XML
so useful. Even if it isn't perfect.
--
MLHIM VIP Signup: http://goo.gl/22B0U
============================================
Timothy Cook, MSc +55 21 94711995
MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook